Literature DB >> 22743805

Adsorption uptake of synthetic organic chemicals by carbon nanotubes and activated carbons.

A J Brooks1, Hyung-nam Lim, James E Kilduff.   

Abstract

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have shown great promise as high performance materials for adsorbing priority pollutants from water and wastewater. This study compared uptake of two contaminants of interest in drinking water treatment (atrazine and trichloroethylene) by nine different types of carbonaceous adsorbents: three different types of single walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs), three different sized multi-walled nanotubes (MWNTs), two granular activated carbons (GACs) and a powdered activated carbon (PAC). On a mass basis, the activated carbons exhibited the highest uptake, followed by SWNTs and MWNTs. However, metallic impurities in SWNTs and multiple walls in MWNTs contribute to adsorbent mass but do not contribute commensurate adsorption sites. Therefore, when uptake was normalized by purity (carbon content) and surface area (instead of mass), the isotherms collapsed and much of the CNT data was comparable to the activated carbons, indicating that these two characteristics drive much of the observed differences between activated carbons and CNT materials. For the limited data set here, the Raman D:G ratio as a measure of disordered non-nanotube graphitic components was not a good predictor of adsorption from solution. Uptake of atrazine by MWNTs having a range of lengths and diameters was comparable and their Freundlich isotherms were statistically similar, and we found no impact of solution pH on the adsorption of either atrazine or trichloroethylene in the range of naturally occurring surface water (pH = 5.7-8.3). Experiments were performed using a suite of model aromatic compounds having a range of π-electron energy to investigate the role of π-π electron donor-acceptor interactions on organic compound uptake by SWNTs. For the compounds studied, hydrophobic interactions were the dominant mechanism in the uptake by both SWNTs and activated carbon. However, comparing the uptake of naphthalene and phenanthrene by activated carbon and SWNTs, size exclusion effects appear to be more pronounced with activated carbon materials, perhaps due to smaller pore sizes or larger adsorption surface areas in small pores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22743805     DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/23/29/294008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nanotechnology        ISSN: 0957-4484            Impact factor:   3.874


  4 in total

Review 1.  The asbestos-carbon nanotube analogy: An update.

Authors:  Agnes B Kane; Robert H Hurt; Huajian Gao
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 4.219

2.  Displacement and competitive sorption of organic pollutants on multiwalled carbon nanotubes.

Authors:  Xiaofang Shen; Xilong Wang; Shu Tao; Baoshan Xing
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Competitive adsorption of metals onto magnetic graphene oxide: comparison with other carbonaceous adsorbents.

Authors:  Jin Hur; Jaewon Shin; Jeseung Yoo; Young-Soo Seo
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2015-03-12

4.  Activated boron nitride as an effective adsorbent for metal ions and organic pollutants.

Authors:  Jie Li; Xing Xiao; Xuewen Xu; Jing Lin; Yang Huang; Yanming Xue; Peng Jin; Jin Zou; Chengchun Tang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.